Strategic Competence

Definition:

Strategic competence is the component of communicative competence first identified by Canale & Swain (1980) that encompasses verbal and non-verbal communication strategies used to compensate for breakdowns in communication caused by insufficient competence or limiting performance conditions. In L2 contexts, strategic competence is particularly salient: learners routinely encounter situations where their L2 knowledge is insufficient to express intended meanings, and the strategies they deploy—circumlocution, paraphrase, approximation, topic avoidance, appeals for help—determine whether communication succeeds or fails.

In-Depth Explanation

Canale & Swain’s communicative competence framework:

Canale & Swain (1980) proposed that communicative competence comprises four interrelated components:

Grammatical competence: Knowledge of the linguistic code—phonology, morphosyntax, lexicon, orthography.
Sociolinguistic competence: Knowledge of sociolinguistic norms—when to use which form, register, politeness conventions.
Discourse competence: Knowledge of how to structure connected discourse—cohesion and coherence.
Strategic competence: Communication strategies for managing meaning gaps.

Strategic competence was initially defined primarily as remedial—compensating for deficits. Bachman (1990) later reconceptualized it as metacognitive—the strategic component involved in planning, executing, and evaluating all communicative acts, including in L1. This broader view treats strategic competence as the overarching metacognitive management of communication, not merely a repair mechanism.

Taxonomy of communication strategies:

Færch & Kasper (1983) and Tarone (1977) provided taxonomies of communication strategies:

Achievement strategies (attempt to communicate the intended message):

Circumlocution: Describing a concept for which the L2 word is unknown (“the thing you use to cut bread” = knife).
Approximation: Using the closest L2 word available when the exact word is unknown (using “plant” for a specific type of flower).
Word coinage: Creating a new word from known morphemes (L2 learner inventing bookstore-man for librarian).
Code-switching: Switching to L1 or another known language when L2 fails.
Appeal for help: Directly asking an interlocutor for the necessary word (“How do you say…?”).
Mime/gesture: Non-verbal communication as a supplement or substitute for linguistic form.
Paraphrase: Expressing the intended meaning through a longer or different chain of known forms.

Reduction strategies (abandon the intended message):

Topic avoidance: Avoiding subjects where L2 competence is inadequate.
Message abandonment: Beginning an utterance and abandoning it when L2 resources run short.
Meaning replacement: Substituting a simpler, available message for the intended message.

Strategic competence in Japanese:

Communication strategy use in Japanese is influenced by:

The highly complex writing system: learners may avoid written communication topics requiring kanji they don’t know.
Keigo (register): Learners may avoid honorific interactions entirely (topic avoidance) rather than risk register errors.
Long-distance dependency in Japanese syntax: complex clause structures may be abandoned mid-sentence when the verb-final predicate cannot be constructed.
Japanese-specific non-verbal strategies: silence has communicative value in Japanese (as indirect refusal, disagreement, or hesitation signals); strategic silence use may differ from L1 norms.

Strategic competence through the SLA lens:

Research debates whether extensive use of communication strategies is educationally beneficial or harmful:

Pro-strategy views (Poulisse, 1990; Yule & Tarone, 1997): Achievement strategies maintain communicative flow, provide negotiation of meaning opportunities, and may drive vocabulary learning by identifying gaps.
Anti-strategy views (inspired by Krashen): Strategy use may reduce encounter with the target L2 form; avoidance of complex structures impoverishes learner input; over-reliance on circumlocution may inhibit acquisition of target lexis.

The moderate position (Ellis, 1994): strategic competence is a legitimate component of developing L2 proficiency, but learners should be pushed beyond avoidance strategies toward acquisition of the target forms they currently lack.

Strategic competence and willingness to communicate:

MacIntyre et al.’s (1998) Willingness to Communicate (WTC) framework interacts with strategic competence: learners with higher strategic competence confidence are more willing to engage communicatively, because they know they can manage breakdowns. Building strategic competence explicitly may therefore support WTC development — creating learners willing to attempt communication even at limited proficiency, rather than avoiding interaction until proficiency is “good enough.”

History

1972: Selinker’s interlanguage paper indirectly addresses communication strategies.
1977: Tarone’s initial communication strategy paper.
1980: Canale & Swain formalize strategic competence in communicative competence framework.
1983: Færch & Kasper’s taxonomy of communication strategies.
1990: Bachman’s reconceptualization of strategic competence as metacognitive management.
1990: Poulisse’s dissertation on communication strategies in Dutch L2 English.
1998: MacIntyre et al.’s WTC pyramid model integrates strategic competence with motivation.

Common Misconceptions

“Using communication strategies is a sign of failure.” Communication strategies are a normal component of skilled communication, even for native speakers who encounter lexical gaps. In L2, strategic competence is itself a measurable proficiency dimension.

“Good learners don’t need communication strategies.” Advanced learners have sophisticated strategic competence, not an absence of strategy use. They use richer, more elaborate achievement strategies (nuanced circumlocution, precise approximation) rather than simple avoidance.

“Topic avoidance is always bad.” While topic avoidance may reduce acquisition opportunities for avoided domains, it is pragmatically rational at early proficiency levels — the alternative (failing to communicate at all) is worse.

Criticisms

The distinction between “communication strategy” and “production strategy” is blurry; all language production involves strategic planning.
Research on communication strategy training shows mixed effects on both strategy use and L2 proficiency development.
The concept of “strategic competence” has expanded so broadly (from Canale/Swain to Bachman) that it risks becoming an umbrella category for everything metacognitive in communication.

Social Media Sentiment

Language learners in Japanese communities describe strategic competence behavior constantly: “I didn’t know the word for X so I described it as ‘a machine that makes coffee in a restaurant’” — classic circumlocution. The AJATT community emphasizes avoidance (stay in Japanese even when you don’t have the word) rather than code-switching, training learners toward achievement strategies over reduction strategies. Learners report that pushing through with circumlocution is motivating and effective for rapid vocabulary gap identification.

Last updated: 2026-04

Practical Application

Practice circumlocution in Japanese explicitly: Describe common objects and concepts using only words you know. Role-play scenarios where looking up the word is forbidden — force circumlocution. This builds strategic fluency in Japanese expression.
Avoid topic avoidance: When a Japanese topic exceeds your current vocabulary, push through with approximation and circumlocution rather than switching topics. The breakdown itself creates a vocabulary acquisition trigger.
Build an appeal-for-help phrase bank: Study and internalize how to ask for word help in Japanese: 〜は日本語で何と言いますか? えーと… 何ですかね…, 〜みたいなものです (it’s like a…) — these strategic phrases allow you to maintain Japanese-medium communication while seeking the missing word.
Post-communication vocabulary mining: After any Japanese conversation, note the words you needed but didn’t have (gaps identified via strategic moments) and look them up immediately. This converts strategic competence gaps into acquisition targets.

Related Terms

Research

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47. [Summary: Introduces four-component communicative competence framework; strategic competence defined as compensation for knowledge gaps; foundational paper for communicative language teaching and testing.]

Tarone, E. (1977). Conscious communication strategies in interlanguage. In H. D. Brown, C. Yorio, & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL ’77. TESOL. [Summary: First systematic treatment of communication strategies in L2; introduces avoidance, paraphrase, conscious transfer, and appeal for help as strategy types; foundational taxonomy paper.]

Færch, C., & Kasper, G. (Eds.). (1983). Strategies in Interlanguage Communication. Longman. [Summary: Comprehensive taxonomy of communication strategies in L2; distinguishes reduction and achievement strategies; foundational reference for all subsequent communication strategy research.]

Bachman, L. F. (1990). Fundamental Considerations in Language Testing. Oxford University Press. [Summary: Reconceptualizes strategic competence as metacognitive management component of all communicative language ability — broader than Canale/Swain’s deficit-compensation view; dominant assessment framework.]

MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545–562. [Summary: WTC pyramid model; integrates strategic competence confidence with communicative anxiety, motivation, and identity; predicts that competence-confidence supports willingness to communicate.]

Mikey Does